Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 990 (MP)

Girraj v. State of M. P.

2000-09-12

FAKHRUDDIN

body2000
Appellants have been convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been sentenced to further imprisonment for two months each by the First Additional Sessions Judge. Morena in Sessions Trial No. 41/89. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment the appellants preferred the present appeal. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Smt. Doota alias Girja was married to Girraj, the appellant No. 1, about three years' prior to the incident. i.e. on 10.1.1988 when she died in her in-law's house. Intimation thereof was given to her father (PW 1) Siyaram. Siyaram gave a written report Ex. P-l to the Police Station Banmore on which the police registered a marg intimation Ex. P-2. Since the death was within seven years from the date of her marriage, offence u/Ss. 306. 304B and 201 IPC was registered by the Police. It was contended that demand of Motor-cycle was persistently made and since the demand was not fulfilled, she was done to death. After completing the usual investigation, challan was filed. The appellants abjured their guilt and contended that Girja Bai died a natural death. It was also stated that there was no demand of dowry. The prosecution examined (PW 1) Siyaram father of the deceased Doota Bai alias Girja, (PW 2) Lokendra Singh (PW 3) Mishrilal (both neighbours), (PW 4) Shyamsundar; brother of the deceased, (PW 5) Om Prakash, cousin of deceased, (PW 6) Ramcharan Singh, Incharge, Police Station, Banmore. (PW 7) Dr. Kunj Biharilal, (PW 8) R.R. Choudhary, Dy. S.P., Investigating Officer and (PW 9) Shambhudayal a witness of seizure of cremation ashes. The appellants examined (OW 1) Shrilal Patel a neighbour of accused-appellants. (OW 2) Ramkumar Sharma and (OW 3) Mahesh Kumar: both are teachers, living nearby the appellant in their defence to show that Smt. Doota alias Girja was nicely treated and she was complaining stomach-ache. The trial Court after considering the material on record in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment has found that the deceased died as natural death. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial Court found in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment. The trial Court after considering the material on record in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment has found that the deceased died as natural death. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial Court found in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment. regarding demand of dowry, and held that the prosecution has proved the offence against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt and therefore it convicted the accused appellants for offence u/s 498A IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has challenged the finding of the learned trial Court and submitted that so far as conviction of the appellants is concerned. is illegal and contrary to law. It was also contended that there is no evidence regarding demand of dowry or Motor-cycle. It was also contended that so far as Bacharam appellant No. 2 and Smt. Krashna Bai appellant No.3 are concerned, there is no evidence against them and they have been implicated absolutely on omnibus-statement. So far as Girraj appellant No. 1 is concerned, it is contended that Siyaram (PW I), Lokendra (PW 2), Mishrilal (PW 3), Shyamsunder (PW 4) and Om Prakash (PW 5) have stated that he was demanding motor-cycle but the version is not reliable. On the other hand, learned Penal Lawyer appearing for the respondent-State has urged that there is overwhelming evidence against the appellant No. 1 Girraj and appellants No.2 and 3 Bacharam and Smt. Krashna Bai are equally responsible as they did not intervene the matter. The prosecution case has been fully established by the evidence on record and. Therefore, the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court needs no interference. Having heard the counsel appearing for the accused-appellants and the penal lawyer appearing for the respondent-State and having gone through the evidence of (PW 1) Siyaram father of the deceased, (PW 2) Lokendra Singh, (PW 3) Mishrilal both neighbours; (PW 4) Shyamsunder brother of the deceased and (PW 5) Om Prakash, the cousin of the deceased, the evidence of harassment against appellant No. 1 is reliable and cogent. The evidence shows persistent demand of Motor-cycle so far as appellant No. 1 Girraj is concerned, which has not been shattered in the cross-examination. This clearly establishes the offence of demand of dowry against appellant No. 1 Girraj for the offence u/s 498A IPC. The evidence shows persistent demand of Motor-cycle so far as appellant No. 1 Girraj is concerned, which has not been shattered in the cross-examination. This clearly establishes the offence of demand of dowry against appellant No. 1 Girraj for the offence u/s 498A IPC. However, so far as appellants No.2 Bacharam and Smt. Krashna Bai are concerned, this Court taking the totality of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, is of the opinion that reliable evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that they made the demand of Motor-cycle. The Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others ( AIR 2000 SCW 2093 ) has held that: "For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere, conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused." In view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court (Kans Raj's case) (supra), it has to be seen as to whether there is legal and reliable evidence on record against the appellant No.2 Bacharam and appellant No. 3 Smt. Krashna Bai. A perusal of the record shows that the trial Court in paragraph No. 14 of the judgment has drawn a lurking/presumption against the appellants No. 2 Bacharam and appellant No.3 Smt. Krashna Bai. In the opinion of this Court the conviction u/s. 498A IPC so far as these appellants, i.e. appellant No.2 Bacharam and appellant No.3 Smt. Krashna Bai are concerned, is not sustainable. They are acquitted of the charge. Their conviction and sentence are set aside. In the opinion of this Court the conviction u/s. 498A IPC so far as these appellants, i.e. appellant No.2 Bacharam and appellant No.3 Smt. Krashna Bai are concerned, is not sustainable. They are acquitted of the charge. Their conviction and sentence are set aside. For the reasons stated above, in the opinion of this Court, there are material on record to establish that it was the appellant No. 1, Girraj, who made persistent demand of Motor-cycle and will fall under Section 498A IPC. His conviction u/s 498A IPC, is maintained. The last question is what sentence has to be imposed on the appellant No. 1 Girraj. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant No. 1., Girraj be released on probation of offenders Act. In support of his contention he stated that the incident is said to have occurred in the year 1988 and 12 years have passed. Having giving thoughtful consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court end of justice will serve if sentence of the appellant No. 1 Girraj is reduced to the period already undergone and fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to 2,500/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 2,000/- be deposited within six weeks. On failure to deposit the fine, he shall be required to undergo sentence of six months. Consequently, the appeal preferred by appellants No.2 Bacharam and appellant No.3 Krashna Bai, is allowed. Their conviction and sentence are set aside. So far as the appeal preferred by appellant No. 1 Girraj is concerned, is partly allowed. His conviction u/s 498A IPC is maintained and his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 2,500/-. In default of fine he shall under-go the sentence of six months.